What is the major flaw in the science of GW?

Question

A major study of ice cores discovered that CO2 rises and falls after the rise and fall of global temperatures. The same study shows that global temperature increases in harmony with increased sun spot activity. Doesn't it follow then that the sun and not mankind is the culprit?

Answer 1

Overdependence on facts and research, and not enough weight given to faith and politics.

Answer 2

What science? there is no reliable science proving that humans are responsible.

Answer 3

the major flaw is that it will cut into some short term profits of some very powerful political lobbying groups of some very powerful industries and countries, such as saudi arabia and the republican party.

Answer 4

No.  Think about it.  If there was a flaw that simple and obvious, the topic of global warming would have been dropped long ago.  The flaw in your argument is it requires assuming that there can only be one cause, so one contributing factor wipes out all others.  That assumption is wrong.  It's a subtle trick that the coal and oil industry's propaganda pros when presenting reasonable-sounding objections for people to latch onto.  The exact same people told you that smoking doesn't cause cancer, successfully delaying public response on that issue.  This issue is a whole lot bigger than killing a few smokers.  

Small changes in the sun's radiation, sometimes due to minor fluctuations in the earth's orbit over long periods of time, may start periods of slight warming, but all indications are that it is the carbon dioxide and methane released as a result that is respondible for most of the warming.

After the 800 year lag before the sun causes enough warming for CO2 to kick in, there's another 4200 years of CO2-driven warming.  We could cause just such tipping point in far less than 800 years.  We may ahve passed that point already.  We've already exceeded the capacity of the oceans and forests (what's left of them) to absorb carbon dioxide.  

Having carbon dioxide drive the warming first, instead of hainvg it be a positive feedback enhancing existing warming, has rarely ocurred on this planet.  The few times it has have been disasterous for life, resulted in the extinction of most species on the planet (the Permian–Triassic extinction event for example).

There's a lot more about the science of global warming on the American Institute of Physics site:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Move around the site; it's not an agenda-driven think tnak like the sources of misleading denial information.  Physicists could care less about climate change; most physicists are not climatologists.  Physicists do however understand the science behind greenhouse gas warming, so they've added that section to their site to educated the rest of us on the extreme threat that we face.

Answer 5

These things are not flaws.  In fact they PROVE this warming is mostly caused by us making too much CO2.

Basic science says CO2 is BOTH a cause and an effect of warming.  In every PREVIOUS warming CO2 lagged temperature, because it was mostly an effect.  THIS TIME THERE IS NO LAG, because it's mostly a cause.

We KNOW it's not the Sun causing this, because we measure the Sun (a lot).

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

Answer 6

There's no flaw, but it is an incomplete theory without proof.  The idea that a very small change in the spectral absorption properties of the atmosphere can cause a significant change in the climate by some mechanisms which are not known yet.  It should be regarded as a speculative theory which doesn't fit real world data very well.  

I think Chris summed up the reason for his beliefs well.  He knows in his heart that CO2 is bad.  I don't doubt his sincerity, but that's not really a scientific proof.

Answer 7

The major flaw in the science of Global Warming?  I wasn't aware that there was one.  It all makes perfect sense if you know anything about the buildup of greenhouse gases.  Even if you write off all of the evidence that has been gathered over the past half century as being 'just normal temperature increases', it's still pretty clear that pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like a constantly erupting worldwide volcano will eventually cause some negative effects, probably within the next fifty years if it continues unchecked.

Answer 8

The largest flaw in the AGW theory is that computer models, which by the way "are the only way to begin to untangle natural and unnatural climate variability", predict that the mid troposphere at the equator should have warmed 30% faster, or more, per decade than the surface did. There is no direct evidence of this. The radiative transfer theory is fairly simple, the atmosphere captures heat and causes the surface to warm, all evidence however indicates that the surface has warmed over the last 3 decades but mid atmospheric temperatures have warmed at a slower rate, unless you believe some of the ridiculous corrections, that some of the witch doctors have applied to the data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

.

.

Answer 9

The major problem is fundamental.  If someone tells me the earth is going to warm because of increased co2, the first question is, 'By How Much?'.  Estimates range from .5'C to 6'C for atmospheric co2 doubling, all peer reviewed studies, making one no more valid than another.

Given any group of people, and given a range of values to choose from, the number of people choosing a particular value at random should  resemble the classic bell curve.  This is the type of response a recent survey of IPCC scientists produced, although the choices where one of three.  50% believe the IPCC's reports to be accurate, 25% believe it overestimates the issue, and 25% believe it underestimates the issue.  This certainly is more of a psychological issue than one of physics, and tells me that the consensus is a mile wide and inch deep, with no one really knowing anything.

Answer 10

it is not as simple as that



http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

global warming is but a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources , air pollution,Non sustainable Agriculture,over pumping carbon aquifers

all concepts which are definitely not part of the Natural Processes of the Natural world

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR,

The most prolific growth on this planet is part of the day in the mist and most of the time under clouds ,and the least growth is always directly in the sun .

To exchange the one for the other means changing local climates

We are exchanging Nature with Tar , concrete and open spaced mono cultures.

In 300 years half of the planets forests have gone ,and in the last 50 years half of the wet lands ,and rain forests

These Areas absorb heat during the day and release heat at night ,

Cause cloud formation(shade).humidifying the air on the surface as well as releasing excess water at the roots that keep rivers flowing ,which in turn brings more water into the Environment .

As well as contributing to absorbing carbon emissions as do the leaves of the trees together with the oceans .

All in all many factors which directly affect the local Environment .

The loss of the above resulting in rivers drying up ,less rain ,desertification,loss of habitat for many species and so on.

dryer and hotter surface environments which can manifest in different weather patterns such as tornadoes or bush fires

I may be stupid or Naive but somehow i believe that lots of these local environmental changes, can add up to affect global weather, If there are enough of them (and there are)

And then on top of that comes the story of the effects of pollutants released into Nature and especially the Air ,by MAN http://earthissues.multiply.com/photos/a...

A cocktail of events and a lot of the ingredients have MAN written all over them

So it is safe to assume that we should look at ourselves ,just a teeny bit ,for possible improvements ,and rectifying Eco errors that are with in our powers.

What is a safer bet

to be or not to be

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 11

One of the flaws is when they started calculating global temperatures. They started right when the planet was coming out of the last mini ice age. Another flaw is that they don't really know what the ideal global temperature should be. The biggest flaw is that they are claiming that the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the main cause of the global temperature increase. Hmmm I wonder what the big glowing object in the sky does, besides provide light for over half the planet at the same time.